Juvenile Competency and Pretrial Due Process: A Call for Greater Protections in Massachusetts for Juveniles Residing in Procedural Purgatory

While juvenile courts continue to balance and reevaluate the dual goals of community safety and rehabilitation of youth, juveniles who are not competent to stand trial have been left without sufficient procedural protections. This paper examines Massachusetts’ approach to juvenile competency, due process, and pretrial procedure, within a national context. The inadequacies of the Massachusetts juvenile competency laws are not unique. Currently there are nineteen states that either entirely lack juvenile‐specific competency legislation or merely incorporate inapposite adult criminal statutes and standards into the juvenile context—making it difficult or impossible for those juvenile courts to dismiss or divert a delinquency petition following an incompetency finding. Massachusetts and states similarly situated should adopt explicit statutory language to delineate the basis for a juvenile incompetency finding and the grounds for dismissing delinquency complaints pretrial after an incompetency finding has been made. This paper proposes that Massachusetts adopt a timeline for effecting such dismissals based in part on the amount of time a juvenile could face if committed to the juvenile correctional authority following an adjudication of delinquency. The paper also recommends best practices of states that are pioneering juvenile legislative reforms like dismissal timelines and incompetency presumptions. Finally, we suggest a more stringent regulatory framework be put in place governing the pretrial detention of youths who have been found not competent to stand trial—a framework that recognizes and preserves the juvenile's substantive rights to education, mental health and rehabilitative services. Without legislation, juveniles found not competent to stand trial remain subject to the prospect of indefinite locked detention, often without access to the necessary services that contribute to future success as well as attainment of competency. This lack of due process runs counter to the foundational goals of the juvenile justice system.     

Diverting and Abdicating Judicial Discretion: Cultural, Political, and Procedural Dynamics in California Juvenile Justice

Although tensions between substantive and formal rationality in the adult criminal justice system have received a great deal of attention, the existence of these tensions in the juvenile justice system has received little scholarly consideration. I seek to remedy this gap by exploring how punitive policies associated with the war on crime impact the formal and informal process of justice, the court community and work group, and the exercise of discretion in the juvenile courts. Drawing on qualitative data collected in three juvenile courts in Southern California, I identify the mechanisms by which prosecutors divert judicial discretion from the traditional rehabilitation-oriented bench officers to bench officers who are more accepting of the criminalization of juveniles. In addition, I investigate how and why rehabilitation-oriented bench officers at times abdicate their decisionmaking authority and make rulings that contradict their own assessments. My findings suggest that as the war on crime is extended to youth, the juvenile courts increasingly share the criminal courts' emphasis on offense rather than offender, enhanced prosecutorial power, and adversarial relationships within the court.     

Self-Reported Delinquency in India: A Study of High School and Approved School Boys in Tamil Nadu

Findings from a self-reported delinquency survey among high school (N = 517) and institutionalized (N = 306) boys in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu are reported as part of a larger study designed to tap several aspects of delinquency phenomena in a developing society. The present research suggests that self-reported delinquency in India resembles that of juveniles in economically developed nations in several respects but differs from it in other ways. Specifically, as found elsewhere, self-reported delinquency in Tamil Nadu largely consists of minor property offenses or status-technical violations. Also, institutionalized boys (official delinquents) more frequently report delinquency involvement compared to high school boys. However, while a general inverse relationship was found between the SES rank of boys in various high schools and institutions and their reported delinquency involvement, it appears that this is not necessarily a direct linear relationship. In contrast to the findings of self-report research in developed nations, both the volume and frequency of self-admitted involvement in delinquency is comparatively low for Tamil Nadu boys, reflecting the comparatively low offense and arrest rates for juveniles reported in official crime data in India. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

Ten Ways to Reduce Detention Population

“Juvenile detention is regularly overlooked, maligned, and misunderstood. Its embattled condition is best described as severely abused and neglected. It is underfunded, understaffed, crowded and largely ignored.”¹ “Detention caseloads increased 38 percent between 1987 and 1996. The increase in the number of delinquency cases handled by the courts has driven the growth in the number of juveniles in the detention system. In 1987, 1.2 million delinquency cases were disposed of in juvenile courts. By 1996, this number had risen 49 percent, to almost 1.8 million. This increase in the volume of juveniles in the justice system resulted in a 38 percent increase in the number of delinquency cases that involved the use of detention. The number of juvenile delinquency cases detained in 1996 was 89,000 more than in 1987. This has resulted in increased demand for juvenile detention bed space across the country.”² “Changes in statutes allowing more detainable offenses have significantly increased the number of youths admitted to regional detention centers.”³ “Although minority youth constituted about 32 percent of the youth population in the country in 1995, they represented 68 percent of the juvenile population in secure detention…⁴     

Delinquency and Justice

Abstract

In an attempt to demonstrate the value of case study research on delinquency in American Indian communities, Tribal Court juvenile records from one western American Indian community, 1991 through 1998, were analyzed and interviews conducted with community members. Most arrests of juveniles were for alcohol possession and consumption, conduct offenses and status offenses. The most severe offense was simple assault. Youths were more likely to be detained for underage consumption than youths off reservation. Few bookings (26%) resulted in court hearings and all cases resulted in dismissal, deferred adjudication, or deferred sentencing. Girls had higher rates of arrest and detention than males. Interviews identified alcohol consumption and erosion of the extended family as correlates of delinquency.     

THE JUVENILE PENALTY: A COMPARISON OF JUVENILE AND YOUNG ADULT SENTENCING OUTCOMES IN CRIMINAL COURT*

This study uses criminal court data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) to investigate the sentencing of juvenile offenders processed in adult criminal court by comparing their sentencing outcomes to those of young adult offenders in similar situations. Because the expanded juvenile exclusion and transfer policies of the 1990s have led to an increase in the number of juveniles convicted in adult courts, we argue that it is critical to better understand the judicial decision making processes involved. We introduce competitive hypotheses on the relative leniency or severity of sentencing outcomes for transferred juveniles and interpret our results with the focal concerns theoretical perspective on sentencing. Our findings indicate that juvenile offenders in adult court are sentenced more severely than their young adult counterparts. Moreover, findings suggest that juvenile status interacts with and conditions the effects of other important sentencing factors including offense type, offense severity and prior criminal record. We discuss these results as they relate to immediate outcomes for transferred juveniles, criminal court processes in general and the broader social implications for juvenile justice policy concerning the transfer of juveniles to criminal court.     

Significant Gender Differences in Factors Related to the Detention of Youthful Offenders

An important priority of the U.S. juvenile justice system is to reduce the number of youthful offenders who are placed into secure detention placement. Though significant research examining these predictors exists, there is limited analysis of gender-specific predictors. Using existing juvenile court and mental health assessment case records of 433 youthful offenders from two Midwestern U.S. counties, this study sought to identify separately for males and females the legal (including number of delinquency adjudications, age at first delinquency adjudication, number of court offenses, and type of offense) and extralegal (including demographic, maltreatment, mental health, and school-related disabilities) factors that impact recidivism to detention placement. Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that the predictors of recidivism leading to repeat secure detention placement were indeed different for males and females, although there were some shared predictors. For both genders, the number of court offenses and having a previous suicide attempt were significant predictors. In addition, for females, having a diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and a misdemeanor offense were protective against recidivism. For males, three other variables significantly predicted recidivism: age, race, and a conduct disorder diagnosis.     

A Practical Approach to Evaluating and Improving Juvenile Justice Programs

For more than a decade, the juvenile justice field in the United States has been dominated by the seventh “moral panic” over juvenile delinquency. This panic led to an overreaction to juvenile delinquency by legislators and juvenile justice officials. The main consequence is a “crisis of overload” in many state and local juvenile justice systems across the country. Tools are available to help juvenile courts effectively manage the overload of court clients. Most important, a new method has been developed for evaluating existing programs against research‐based standards that have been synthesized from juvenile justice program evaluations. This tool enables states and localities to take a practical approach to improving juvenile justice system programs.     

Sentencing disparities for juvenile offenders sentenced to adult prisons: An individual and contextual analysis

While the punishment of juvenile offenders has increasingly become an issue of major concern to the public, there are few studies that test the government's coercive response to offending by this particular group. This study addresses this issue by examining the variation in sentence length for juvenile offenders adjudicated in the adult criminal courts for violent offenses. Results from the regression analyses consistently show that, while factors related to the specific offense are important contributors to the variation in sentence length, differences in the ideological climate of each state are a strong predictor of the variation in adult sanctions for minors. Specifically, the findings show that conservative citizen ideology and Republican control of state government are important contributors to the variation in sentencing of juveniles across U.S. states. Additional evidence shows that states where judges must run in an election to gain their seats proscribe more severe sanctions on juvenile offenders by sentencing more of them to adult prisons. Overall, the results suggest that the social and political climate of each state plays a very strong role in the sentencing of juvenile offenders to adult prisons.     

PUBLIC OPINION AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE JUVENILE COURT*

Over 100 years ago, juvenile courts emerged out of the belief that juveniles are different from adults—less culpable and more rehabilitatable—and can be "saved" from a life of crime and disadvantage. Today, the juvenile justice system is under attack through increasing calls to eliminate it and enactment of statutes designed to place younger offenders in the adult justice system. However, little evidence exists that policy makers have taken the full range of public views into account. At the same time, scholarly accounts of calls to eliminate the juvenile justice system have neglected the role of public opinion. The current study addresses this situation by examining public views about 1) abolishing juvenile justice and 2) the proper upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction. Particular attention is given to the notion that child‐saving and "get tough" orientations influence public views about juvenile justice. The analyses suggest support for the lingering appeal of juvenile justice among the public and the idea that youth can be “saved,” as well as arguments about the politicization and criminalization of juvenile justice. They also highlight that the public, like states, holds variable views about the appropriate age of juvenile court jurisdiction. We discuss the implications of the study and avenues for future research. Why is it not just and proper to treat these juvenile offenders, as we deal with the neglected children, as a wise and merciful father handles his own child whose errors are not discovered by the authorities? Why is it not the duty of the state, instead of asking merely whether a boy or a girl has committed a specific offense, to find out what he is, physically, mentally, morally, and then if it learns that he is treading the path that leads to criminality, to take him in charge, not so much to punish as to reform, not to degrade but to uplift, not to crush but to develop, to make him not a criminal but a worthy citizen.     

Follow-up of a social skills training (SST) for juvenile delinquents: effects on reoffending

Objectives

To examine (1) the long-term effects on reoffending of an individual SST for juvenile delinquents in The Netherlands and (2) whether effects differ by demographic and offense history characteristics.

Methods

The present study is a follow-up of a matched control study comparing post-treatment effects of N?=?115 juveniles receiving Tools4U, an SST with a parental component, to N?=?108 control group juveniles receiving treatment as usual (TAU). Analyses were conducted separately for delinquents and truants. Effects in terms of recidivism were assessed using official delinquency data after 6 and 12 months and 1.46 years after SST termination. Percentage of recidivists, number of re-arrests, and violent recidivism were outcome variables.

Results

Overall, 39% of the juveniles reoffended, and there were no differences between Tools4U and TAU on any of the selected recidivism outcomes. Additionally, demographic and delinquency characteristics and post-treatment effects did not moderate effectiveness.

Conclusions

Tools4U was not more effective than TAU in preventing recidivism, which may be explained by a generally low percentage of recidivists. With established treatment integrity, and a lack of well-researched effective treatment alternatives, Tools4U could still be a reasonable treatment option for adolescent onset juvenile offenders, although more research is needed to confirm this.

     

Juvenile Court Variations: Procedural and Processing Differences in a Midwestern State

This study examined whether location and type of juvenile court impacted processing for juveniles in a Midwestern state. 1 For the analysis, the author used qualitative data. This article was built on the opinions and observations of those who work in the juvenile justice system on a daily basis. The author observed juvenile courts and interviewed judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. The information contained herein verifies the differences between rural and urban juvenile justice practice and procedure. The results of this study also revealed that processing varies across jurisdictions and type of court in the juvenile justice system.     

About the authors

In recent years, afterschool programs have received support for their potential to reduce juvenile delinquency and victimization. This support stems largely from reports based on police incident data indicating that juvenile crime and victimization peak during the afterschool hours. However, prior studies of victimization surveys and self‐reports of crime suggest that delinquency is more elevated during school hours. Utilizing self‐report data from a sample of juveniles participating in an evaluation of afterschool programs in Maryland, this study shows that juvenile victimization and delinquency peak during the school hours, while substance use peaks during the weekend. Disaggregating by offense reveals, however, that the more serious violent offenses are elevated during the afterschool hours, while simple assault offenses are most elevated during school hours. Implications for research and practice are discussed.     

Same Crime,Different Time: Why we Need an Amended Guideline for Repeat Offenders to Minors

Currently there is a circuit split between the Second and Ninth Circuits in determining whether or not to apply previous juvenile sex offenses to the sentencing of an adult sex offender. The Second Circuit feels it is within the trial court's discretion to apply an enhancement of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines by applying either a juvenile adjudicated or unadjudicated sex offense to the sentencing of an adult offender. The Ninth Circuit sees that as improper and only adult sex offenses should be counted toward the sentencing of adult sex offenses. Due to the vague language of this enhancement, the determination of how to apply this is up to the court's discretion. This Note proposes that the U.S. Sentencing Commission amend section 4B1.5, and decide in favor of the Ninth Circuit due to the plain text reading of the statute, as well as the intent of the guideline itself alongside the “rule of lenity” as understood in the Ninth Circuit's reasoning of only applying adult offenses to the sentencing of that adult later on in life. The positive public policy of rehabilitation of juvenile offenders would be served greatly by this amendment to this guideline. By eliminating the possibility of having such an offense count against a juvenile in the future would allow and encourage those juveniles to take positive steps toward their future.     

Juvenile Justice Processing:The entangled effects of race and urban poverty

This study addresses the issue of how race and urban poverty affect minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system, using data from 2,003 court cases referred to 13 urban Ohio juvenile courts in 1989. Results of logistic regression analyses show that: 1) minority offenders are more likely to be detained than whites; 2) detention status augments juveniles' chances of being adjudicated and confined; 3) minority juveniles who are from welfare families are more likely to be confined than their self-sustaining counterparts. A cultural stereotype based on juveniles' race and class constitutes the basis of differential treatment.     

Criminal profiles of violent juvenile sex and violent juvenile non sex offenders: an explorative longitudinal study

Few studies have longitudinally investigated the criminal profiles of violent juvenile sex and violent juvenile non-sex offenders. To make up for this lack, this study used police records of juveniles to determine the nature of the criminal profiles of violent sex offenders (n = 226) and violent non-sex offenders (n = 4,130). All offenders committed their first offense in 1996 and were followed for 7 years. Results showed that violent sex offenders and violent non-sex offenders cannot be considered a homogeneous group because of different background characteristics and criminal profiles. Sex and violent offenses often constitute a small part of a broader criminal pattern. Further research is necessary to reveal in more detail the developmental and criminological patterns of violent and sexual delinquency. Treatment and intervention programs may benefit from this.     

The right to counsel in juvenile court

Research Summary The U.S. Supreme Court in In re Gault granted delinquents the right to counsel in juvenile courts. Decades after Gault, efforts to provide adequate defense representation in juvenile courts have failed in most states. Moreover, juvenile justice administration varies with structural context and produces justice-by-geography. In 1995, Minnesota enacted juvenile law reforms, which include mandatory appointment of counsel. This pre- and post-reform legal impact study compares how juvenile courts processed youths before and after the statutory changes. We assess how legal changes affected the delivery of defense services and how implementation varied with urban, suburban, and rural context. Policy Implications We report inconsistent judicial compliance with the mandate to appoint counsel. Despite unambiguous legislative intent, rates of representation improved for only one category of offenders. However, we find a positive reduction in justice by geography, especially in rural courts. Given judicial resistance to procedural reforms, states must find additional strategies to provide counsel in juvenile courts.     

Dealing with Juvenile Offenders in the Criminal Justice System

The treatment of juveniles within the criminal justice systems is a matter of great variety in the 11 European countries studied comparatively. The study focuses on the age of criminal responsibility, ways to divert juvenile offenders from the criminal justice system or avoid criminal justice responses to them, juvenile proceedings and special reactions and sanctions. In spite of different approaches there is a common trend towards preventing juvenile offenders from being treated by criminal courts and being sentenced to criminal sanctions.